Grasshopper's 8d System - Conversion tables for 1940 Global units

IMO, the first benefit is to keep number pretty near those on D6.
So, you don’t have to much adaptation.
Example: Infantry attacking @1 both cases. AAA defending @1.

The only reason to use something different is to allow for something where units are not 1,2,3,4 in values, a D8 offers only 2 pips extra.

With D12 you have the maximum flexibility in assigning new combat values with room to allow new unit types. If you go higher to say D20 its just too much and you wait longer to roll dice because the die is too much like a round ball

So, to summarize the actual benefit in D8 sides:
AAA is more acceptable at this lower D1 vs up to 3 planes.
Is it enough to let them fire each round?
Because OOB at C5, it was not that popular purchase.

An increase gap between off/def Infantry A1-2 vs D3
Artillery A3 D3 on offence is better than Inf A1-2 D3
Tank A4 D4 is not different but better in offense compared to Inf A1-2

However, the gap between Tank D4 vs Artillery or Inf D3 is only 12.5%, OOB 16,7%.
And there is a 2 IPCs difference, usual ratio 11:9 (1.22),
11 D2 C4 (44 IPCs) = 9 D3 C6 (54 IPCs), but now 11:10 (1.10).
I see an issue here. OOB Tank was somehow correct as defense.
If, Tank A5 D5 (62.5% vs 37.5%), then ratio becomes near: 12:10 (1.18)
But now Infantry, MI and Artillery clearly too strong for the cost.
I might be tempted to increase Tank attack and defense factor to 5 (same as Cruiser A5 D5).
So it can keep its niche.  I suggested to get ride of bonus to TcB to compensate.
Or revised the Blitzkrieg bonus to TcB to compensate for Tank weakness.

Rising Cruiser and Battleship attack and defense compared to OOB while choosing the lower value
Fg A4 D5, TcB A4-5 D4 StB A5 D2 instead of higher D6 or A6, might help reduce the Aircraft dominance: Dark Sky and al.

It would solve the BB and Cruiser issue.
Cruiser may be better than Battleship, as a cheaper unit is more cost effective.
But, it is not clear, probably near even in combat for same IPC basis.

@Young:

So in plain terms Baron, what needs to be changed in your opinion?

The main issue, is about Tank vs Artillery off/def or MI defense.
(Almost like C5 or C6 Tank, between AA50 and Global Edition)

This seems also similar to Destroyer, Cruiser, Battleship progression.
D8s
Subs A3 D2 C6         Infantry A1-2 D3 C3, MI C4
DD A3 D3 C8            Artillery A3 D3 C4
CA A5 D5 C12           Tank     A4? D4? C6 or A5 D5 C6 or A5 D4 C6?
BB A6 D6 C20, 2 hits

Fg A4 D5 C10
TcB A4-5 D4 C11
StB A5 D2 C12

Tank A5 D4, would make it a better offensive weapon than Artillery, but still weak on defense due to cost.

Art+Inf: A5 D6 C7
MI+Art: A5 D6 C8

Tank A5 +MI : A6 D7 C10
Tank A5 +Art: A8 D7 C10

2 Tanks A10 D8 C12, 18 pts
3 MIs  A3 D12 C12
3 Arts A9 D9 C12, 18 pts

For the tank cost to fig I only see tank being  A3  D4.

Tac - Tank A4 D4
Tank - mech  A4 D3  or A3 D3 if mech is A2 D2

Take away the to high Attack value to tank but make up for it with tac or mech.

@Baron:

@wittmann:

I like the idea, but am kot haply with a stronger Sub, given the Convoy ability and Stealth they already have . Not for the  price of 6.

Does Subs really get this opportunity for Stealth?
From what I heard, many complain that DD easily block Surprise strike. They rarely see it in game?
Does your games full of Subs?
Unless you are talking about Subs being invisible to planes, if no DD present?

It is still a useful tool and a strength. The enemy need to
Buy more Expensive DDs, just to counter them.
I just think the Sub and the SB are too cheap for the extra options they give.

@Baron:

@Young:

So in plain terms Baron, what needs to be changed in your opinion?

The main issue, is about Tank vs Artillery off/def or MI defense.
(Almost like C5 or C6 Tank, between AA50 and Global Edition)

This seems also similar to Destroyer, Cruiser, Battleship progression.
D8s
Subs A3 D2 C6         Infantry A1-2 D3 C3, MI C4
DD A3 D3 C8            Artillery A3 D3 C4
CA A5 D5 C12           Tank     A4? D4? C6 or A5 D5 C6 or A5 D4 C6?
BB A6 D6 C20, 2 hits

Fg A4 D5 C10
TcB A4-5 D4 C11
StB A5 D2 C12

Tank A5 D4, would make it a better offensive weapon than Artillery, but still weak on defense due to cost.

Art+Inf: A5 D6 C7
MI+Art: A5 D6 C8

Tank A5 +MI : A6 D7 C10
Tank A5 +Art: A8 D7 C10

2 Tanks A10 D8 C12, 18 pts
3 MIs  A3 D12 C12
3 Arts A9 D9 C12, 18 pts

@Young:

But how could I justify a tank attacking better than a fighter and/or tac bomber?

It is a conundrum.
Making TcB as a flying Tank: A5 D4 C11.
Fighter would rise it to A6, but not Tank.
That way, TcB A6 would be double Artillery or Infantry defense as OOB.

You can slightly increase TcB and Tank, costlier offensive units knowing that you have increase defense strength of all cheaper units too. All inf now defend 37.5% instead of 33.3% and have lost offensive power too 12.5% instead of 16.7%.
This defensive boost would be compensate by better Tank and TcB.

@SS:

For the tank cost to fig I only see tank being  A3  D4.

Tac - Tank A4 D4
Tank - mech  A4 D3  or A3 D2 if mech is A2 D2

Take away the to high Attack value to tank but make up for it with tac or mech.

@wittmann:

@Baron:

@wittmann:

I like the idea, but am kot haply with a stronger Sub, given the Convoy ability and Stealth they already have . Not for the  price of 6.

Does Subs really get this opportunity for Stealth?
From what I heard, many complain that DD easily block Surprise strike. They rarely see it in game?
Does your games full of Subs?
Unless you are talking about Subs being invisible to planes, if no DD present?

It is still a useful tool and a strength. The enemy need to
Buy more Expensive DDs, just to counter them.
I just think the Sub and the SB are too cheap for the extra options they give.

I agree for StB, too much range. Cut it to 5+1 with AB and things will be different.
But Subs is countered with 1 DD and other Subs as fodder.
How often do you use your surprise strike?

I don’t understand your post SS, your combat values are changing from one line to another but I cannot catch the relevant factor.

I believe YG is asking how can he have a tank having a value higher than a fig.

My post was asking to make the tank A3 D4 do to lower cost of tank. Thats what the chart is with Tac boosting tank and tank boosting mech to make up for the lower tank A D values.@SS:

@SS:

For the tank cost to fig I only see tank being  A3  D4.

Tac - Tank A4 D4
Tank - mech  A4 D3  or  A3 D2   if mech is A2 D2
Fig should be A4 D4  you paying higher cost for fig do to the options figs can do.

Take away the to high Attack value to tank but make up for it with tac or mech.

@Young:

@Imperious:

I don’t like d8 approach because it offers marginal #pips over D6.

If you had to move to something different you want d12. Not d10 or anything else

However, if you made a system like Fortress America with all the dice D6-12, or even using D4…then you might have something with each type of unit rolling different dice

D4 infantry
D6 air units
D8 naval units
D10?
D12?

you don’t need different color dice, different dice by unit type instead. Under this nations could have different values for units

All that is entirely different from my original post… do you suggest I scrap the whole idea and go back to the draft board? Surely there is something here with the 8 sided system you might like.

YG, your numbers are fine. Seriously agree with this statement. People, please stay on topic with the posts.

Remember, most of the D8 Attack/Defense ratios are still close to the D6 OOB. So, if you disagree, at the MOST, you should only have a DIFFERENCE of opinion with maybe ONE UNIT. We play this game all the time with a D6 and it is still working out just fine! A D8 is significantly more dynamic than people realize.

Also, Baron, sorry but Idon’t read your posts because I was never a fan of Calculus II in school. I recommend just posting about one unit at a time if you won’t articulate a message beyond posting a E=MC 2 formula.

Sorry Ichabod,
I’m a little lazy with Punch formula:
A means Attack, D means Defense, C means Cost, HP means Hit Points.

The issue is about D8s Artillery A3 D3 C4 being too strong compared to D8s Tank A4 D4 C6.

2 Tanks A8 D8 C12, 2 HPs for 16 pips compared to OOB A6 D6 C12, 2 HPs for 12 pips
3 MIs   A3 D9 C12, 3 HPs for 12 pips                           A3 D6 C12, 3 HPs for 9 pips
3 Artys A9 D9 C12, 3 HPs for 18 pips                           A6 D6 C12, 3 HPs for 12 pips.

Even OOB, Tanks were not better than Artillery for defense or offense.
But now, they become still weaker.
Just compare D8s Tank pips vs Artys pips (16 vs 18) against OOB Tank vs Artys (12 vs 12)

Who will want to purchase such?
As such, it creates an anti-tank bias.
Germany will turn toward Artys+ MIs + planes.

That’s why I suggested to rise D8s Tank into A5 D4 C6.
(In a way, it is configured like Classic Tank with better offence than defence.)
So, 2 Tanks A10 D8 C12, 2 HPs for 18 pips

It will be the same pips than Artillery but 1 HP less.

But YG said this Tank will be better than Tactical Bomber A4-5 D4 C11.

Don’t matter what you do with the numbers there’s always going to be a piece that won’t be right. Back to KISS.

That was YG idea that changing for D8 sides will make things KISS.

Probably D10 sides make better KISS…

But YG does not like football dice.
:-D

I already know that. I am talking about d8 to. D12 is the best and yes I do want my dice to roll. D6 dice just slide.

I’m assuming from YG comment about how do I justify the tank being stronger than the fig.
If you make tank A5 D5 that’s yo sttong.